Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Potential of GPT-4 for Detecting Errors in Radiology Reports: Implications for Reporting Accuracy
114
Zitationen
13
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
Background Errors in radiology reports may occur because of resident-to-attending discrepancies, speech recognition inaccuracies, and large workload. Large language models, such as GPT-4 (ChatGPT; OpenAI), may assist in generating reports. Purpose To assess effectiveness of GPT-4 in identifying common errors in radiology reports, focusing on performance, time, and cost-efficiency. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 200 radiology reports (radiography and cross-sectional imaging [CT and MRI]) were compiled between June 2023 and December 2023 at one institution. There were 150 errors from five common error categories (omission, insertion, spelling, side confusion, and other) intentionally inserted into 100 of the reports and used as the reference standard. Six radiologists (two senior radiologists, two attending physicians, and two residents) and GPT-4 were tasked with detecting these errors. Overall error detection performance, error detection in the five error categories, and reading time were assessed using Wald χ<sup>2</sup> tests and paired-sample <i>t</i> tests. Results GPT-4 (detection rate, 82.7%;124 of 150; 95% CI: 75.8, 87.9) matched the average detection performance of radiologists independent of their experience (senior radiologists, 89.3% [134 of 150; 95% CI: 83.4, 93.3]; attending physicians, 80.0% [120 of 150; 95% CI: 72.9, 85.6]; residents, 80.0% [120 of 150; 95% CI: 72.9, 85.6]; <i>P</i> value range, .522-.99). One senior radiologist outperformed GPT-4 (detection rate, 94.7%; 142 of 150; 95% CI: 89.8, 97.3; <i>P</i> = .006). GPT-4 required less processing time per radiology report than the fastest human reader in the study (mean reading time, 3.5 seconds ± 0.5 [SD] vs 25.1 seconds ± 20.1, respectively; <i>P</i> < .001; Cohen <i>d</i> = -1.08). The use of GPT-4 resulted in lower mean correction cost per report than the most cost-efficient radiologist ($0.03 ± 0.01 vs $0.42 ± 0.41; <i>P</i> < .001; Cohen <i>d</i> = -1.12). Conclusion The radiology report error detection rate of GPT-4 was comparable with that of radiologists, potentially reducing work hours and cost. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Forman in this issue.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale.
1991 · 3.966 Zit.
Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review
2005 · 3.758 Zit.
Radiobiology for the Radiologist.
1974 · 3.501 Zit.
International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound
2012 · 2.808 Zit.
Radiation Dose Associated With Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer
2009 · 2.428 Zit.